23 Feb
2019
23 Feb
'19
7:15 p.m.
So, wouldn't it make sense to publish BGP routed networks that do not
have 'tunnel ' set in the portal as RIP routes using amprgw as gateway?
This would solve some issues:
- Users could actually see all reachable destinations in their route list
- Users could easily identify BGP networks by checking 169.228.34.84 as
their gateway
- they could drop the setting of that 'default' route in the ampr
routing table, allowing a (implicit) throw to the main table. This will
make it easier to reach local or directly connected ampr networks (which
now need routes placed in the ampr table). Also, unknown destinations
would be NATed to the system's gateway, without putting any additional
traffic to amprgw.
- it would also allow to have all routes in a single routing table while
being able to reach tunneled and BGPd networks using their AMPR address
without policy routing.
Existing set-ups would not affected by such a change in any way.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 23.02.2019 19:00, Brian Kantor wrote:
Ah, I see I misunderstood what you said. Yes, that
would be expected
to work. I was thinking of the inbound path.
- Brian
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 06:33:14PM +0200, Marius Petrescu wrote:
It works, at least for 44.182.1.1 - I just
checked. Egress via ampr
tunnel default route, a reglar trace with amprgw as the first hop.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 23.02.2019 14:02, Brian Kantor wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net As far as I know it does NOT. I believe
they're blocked at the entrance
firewall to amprgw.
- Brian
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 01:38:19PM +0200, Marius Petrescu wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net In light of the fact that the ampr gw forwards
these routes anyway [...]
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net